Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/japb

Original article Butterfly diversity in Kolkata, : An appraisal for conservation management

Swarnali Mukherjee a, Soumyajit Banerjee a, Goutam K. Saha a, Parthiba Basu a, Gautam Aditya a,b,* a Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India b Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, Burdwan, India article info abstract

Article history: An appraisal of butterfly diversity was made using Kolkata, India as a model geographical area. Received 27 March 2015 Random sampling of rural, suburban, and urban sites in and around Kolkata metropolis revealed the Received in revised form presence of 96 butterfly species, dominated by (31.25%) over Nymphalidae (28.13%), 31 July 2015 Hesperiidae (18.75%), Pieridae (12.50%), and Papilionidae (9.38%). Suburban sites accounted for 96 Accepted 1 August 2015 species, followed by rural (81 species) and urban (53 species) over the study period. The relative Available online 18 August 2015 abundance of the butterflies varied with the site, month, and family significantly.Itisapparentthat the urban areas of Kolkata can sustain diverse butterfly species which includes species of requiring Keywords: butterfly conservation effort. Considering the landscape of Kolkata, steps to enhance urban greening should be fl Kolkata metropolis adopted to maintain butter y diversity and sustain the ecosystem services derived from them. SHE analysis Copyright Ó 2015, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA). species diversity Production and hosting by Elsevier. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction necessary to understand the effect of anthropocentric development on the integrity and sustenance of ecosystem. The study of biological diversity encompasses both the intrinsic The diversity of has been emphasized in many studies and anthropocentric values associated with it. The values of the owing to their dominance in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems biological elements are recognized in correspondence to the and provision of ecosystem services such as pollination, pest con- perceived importance by the human being, which is realized in trol, nutrient decomposition, and maintenance of ecosystem spe- terms of the ecosystem services (Daily 1997; Millennium cies (Losey and Vaughan 2006). Among insects, butterflies perform Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Baumgӓrtner 2007). Biological di- prominent roles in pollination and herbivores (Kunte 2000; Tiple versity is the base for upholding the ecosystems and the functional et al 2006) bearing a history of long-term coevolution with plants aspects of the species that provide goods and services for human (Ehrlich and Raven 1964). Adult butterflies are dependent on nectar well-being. Monitoring of species diversity of a region enables and pollen as their food while the caterpillars are dependent on estimation of the prospective functional roles of the species. In specific host plants for foliage (Nimbalkar et al 2011). Butterflies are urban ecosystems, monitoring species diversity can be used as a considered as good indicators of the health of any specified tool to reduce human mismanagement and pollution in urbanized, terrestrial ecosystem (New 1991; Pollard and Yates 1993; Kunte industrial, rural, and managed areas (Wilson 1997). Extending this 2000; Aluri and Rao 2002; Thomas 2005; Bonebrake et al 2010) view, studies on species diversity in urban ecosystems are as well as in reflection of human disturbance and habitat feature (Kunte et al 1999; Kocher and Williams 2000; Kunte 2000; Summerville and Crist 2001; Koh 2007) with greater sensitivity than many other taxonomic groups (Thomas et al 2004; Thomas 2005). Butterflies are therefore treated as an important model * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 332 4615445x280; fax: þ91 332 4614849. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Aditya). group in ecology and conservation (Watt and Boggs 2003; Ehrlich Peer review under responsibility of National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and and Hanski 2004). The conservation of butterflies is necessary to Korea National Arboretum (KNA). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2015.08.001 pISSN2287-884X eISSN2287-9544/Copyright Ó 2015, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA). Production and hosting by Elsevier. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 211

Table 1. List of butterflies with their relative abundance (mean SE) in urban (U), suburban (Su) and rural (R) sites of Kolkata, India, recorded during study period.

Common name Scientific name U Su R

Family: Papilionidae Common jay Graphium doson (Felder & Felder, 1864) 7 2.24 7.66 3.04 3.16 1.64 Tailed jay Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) 8 2.69 12.33 4.71 5 2.08 Common mormon Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758) 5 1.76 20.16 5.34 20.41 4.94 Lime butterfly Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758) 6 1.78 23.08 5.84 16 3.98 Common mime Chilasa clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) 0.16 0.17 11.08 3.06 3.25 1.12 Blue mormon Papilio polymnestor (Cramer, 1775) 0 0.5 0.23 0 Common rose Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius, 1775) 0.91 0.36 13.58 3.06 5.16 1.32 Crimson rose Pachliopta hector (Linnaeus, 1758) 0.00 0.41 0.26 0 Spot-swordtail Graphium nomius (Esper, 1798) 0.00 0.33 0.26 0 Family: Pieridae Small grass yellow Eurema brigitta (Stoll, 1780) 0 5.25 2.40 1.91 0.73 Three-spot grass yellow Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) 0.41 0.23 9 4.22 3 1.32 Common grass yellow Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) 4.91 2.67 35.91 13.74 10 3.81 Common emigrant Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775) 9.83 2.29 55.16 16.33 10.16 2.8 Mottled emigrant Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758) 9.1 2.33 62 17.18 16.66 3.68 Yellow orange-tip Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) 0 3.25 1.37 0.5 0.34 Common wanderer Pareronia valeria (Cramer, 1776) 0.66 0.38 11.08 3.28 4 1.24 Striped albatross Appias libythea (Fabricius, 1775) 4.5 1.40 15.25 4.91 4.16 1.13 Common gull Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775) 4.75 1.69 26.83 7.30 4.58 1.57 Common jezebel Delias eucharis (Drury, 1773) 2.91 1.34 31.33 15.24 3.25 1.36 Psyche Leptosia nina (Fabricius, 1793) 8.08 1.94 13.08 3.33 4.83 1.57 Pioneer Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0.25 0.18 0 Family: Nymphalidae Blue tiger Tirumala limniace (Cramer, 1775) 1.41 0.65 13.41 4.18 4.91 4.40 Striped tiger Danaus genutia (Cramer, 1779) 2 0.99 15.083 5.86 3.41 1.65 Plain tiger Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus,1758) 4.83 2.27 24.25 8.85 3.83 1.77 Brown king crow Euploea klugii (Moore & Horsfield, 1857) 0 1.08 0.47 0 Common crow - Euploea core (Cramer, 1780) 3.58 1.71 16.83 5.18 2.66 1.01 Common evening brown Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) 6.75 2.27 41.91 19.55 9.333 3.59 Bamboo treebrown Lethe europa (Fabricius, 1775) 0 1 0.72 1.41 1 Common palmfly Elymnias hypermnestra (Linnaeus, 1763) 1.58 0.83 11.5 3.18 7.5 2.32 Common bushbrown Mycalesis perseus (Fabricius, 1775) 2 0.89 15.5 6.25 3.5 1.16 Dark brand bushbrown Mycalesis mineus (Linnaeus, 1858) 0.00 15.5 6.87 1.75 0.94 Common three-ring Ypthima asterope (Klug, 1832) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0 Common five-ring Ypthima baldus (Fabricius, 1775) 0.83 0.46 12.08 4.96 2.16 0.89 Common four-ring Ypthima huebneri (Kirby, 1871) 0.33 0.22 11.16 4.59 1 0.56 Tawny coster Acraea violae (Fabricius, 1775) 2.75 1.21 6.75 2.89 5.75 2.41 Common leopard - Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) 0.25 0.18 17 6.98 4.91 2.50 Commander Moduza procris (Cramer, 1777) 0 1.75 0.79 1.08 0.67 Chestnut-streaked sailer Neptis jumbah (Moore, 1857) 0 2.75 1.08 0.25 0.25 Common baron Euthalia aconthea (Cramer, 1779) 0 2.16 1.42 0.58 0.40 Gaudy baron Euthalia lubentina (Cramer, 1779) 0 0.5 0.26 0 Angled castor Ariadne ariadne (Linnaeus, 1763) 4.33 1.26 14.08 4.50 4.75 1.56 Common castor Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1779) 4 1.56 10.33 2.94 4.08 1.25 Peacock pansy Junonia almana (Linnaeus, 1758) 7.6 1.96 33.25 5.98 5.75 2.15 Grey pansy Junonia atlites (Linnaeus, 1763) 9.08 1.99 30.5 6.22 11.5 2.63 Lemon pansy Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758) 0.91 0.57 6.75 2.48 2.83 1.18 Blue pansy Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1764) 0 0.08 0.08 0 Great eggfly Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus, 1758) 3.08 0.71 17.83 4.43 3.66 1.28 Danaid eggfly Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764) 0 1.75 0.73 0.41 0.29 Family: Lycaenidae Apefly Spalgis nubilus (Moore, 1883) 0 0.25 0.18 0.41 0.29 Indian sunbeam Curetis thetis (Drury, 1773) 0 1.25 0.66 0.58 0.34 Falcate oak blue ameria (Hewitson, 1862) 0 5 2.56 0.25 0.25 Silverstreak blue Iraota timoleon (Stoll, 1790) 0 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.17 Yamfly Loxura atymnus (Cramer, 1780) 0 6.58 2.59 2.5 1.76 Monkey puzzle Rathinda amor (Fabricius, 1775) 0 1.91 1.12 0 Guava blue Virachola isocrates (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0.41 0.29 0.25 0.25 Slate flash Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) 0.08 0.08 0.33 0.14 0.5 0.34 Indigo flash Rapala varuna (Horsfield, 1829) 0 0.58 0.31 0 Common silverline Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) 0.25 0.13 14.83 3.46 2.75 0.88 Common ciliate blue Anthene emolus (Godart, 1824) 0.08 0.08 6.25 2.38 3.33 1.51 Pointed ciliate blue Anthene lycaenina (Felder, 1868) 0 4.66 2.12 3.66 1.39 Common pierrot Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775) 2.33 0.69 24 5.84 4.08 1.17 Red pierrot Talicada nyseus (Guérin-Ménéville, 1843) 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.11 0 Striped pierrot Tarucus nara (Kollar, 1848) 0.5 0.36 21.83 5.34 1.75 0.78 Zebra blue Tarucus plinius (Fabricius, 1793) 0.08 0.08 5.583 1.82 0.83 0.53 Common lineblue Prosotas nora (Felder, 1860) 0 0.33 0.26 0.41 0.29 Tailess line blue Prosotas dubiosa (Semper, 1879) 0 1.08 0.58 0.33 0.26 Dark cerulean Jamides bochus (Stoll, 1782) 0 0.75 0.41 0 Common cerulean Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775) 0 0.66 0.31 0.08 0.08 Forget-me-not Catochrysops strabo (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0.41 0.29 0.33 0.26 Pea blue Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767) 0 0.83 0.51 0 (continued on next page) 212 S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

Table 1.(continued )

Common name Scientific name U Su R

Tiny grass blue Zizula hylax (Fabricius, 1775) 3 1.01 15.91 6.25 1.16 0.64 Pale grass blue Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar, 1844) 3.83 1.28 14.33 4.77 4 1.48 Dark grass blue Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865) 2.16 0.91 14.75 3.57 7.33 1.68 Quaker Neopithecops zalmora (Butler, 1870) 0 24.83 6.60 6.5 2.02 Gram blue Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius, 1798) 0 12.91 3.11 0.83 0.59 Lime blue Chilades lajus (Stoll, 1780) 0 2.75 1.36 1.41 0.63 Plains cupid Catochrysops vapanda (Semper, 1890) 0.5 0.26 4.41 1.83 0.33 0.14 Plum judy Abisara echerius (Moore, 1901) 0 0.08 0.08 0 Family: Hesperiidae Brown awl Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius, 1775) 0.66 0.38 6 2.73 2 0.91 Common banded awl Hasora chromus (Cramer, 1780) 1.33 0.51 4.58 2.41 1.91 0.75 Indian Spialia galba (Fabricius, 1793) 1.08 0.50 8.16 3.09 0.58 0.31 Common snow flat japetus (Stoll, 1782) 0 0.33 0.26 0 Common small flat Sarangesa dasahara (Moore, 1865) 0 0.33 0.22 0.33 0.22 Common grass darlet Taractrocera maevius (Fabricius, 1793) 0 0.83 0.41 0.41 0.29 Common dartlet Oriens goloides (Moore, 1881) 0.25 0.18 0.75 0.51 0.25 0.25 Dark palm dart Telicota ancilla bambusae (Moore, 1878) 0 6.33 2.72 2.25 0.73 Straight swift Parnara guttatus (Bremer & Gray, 1853) 2.41 1.06 12 4.56 4.16 1.43 Rice swift Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) 2.5 1.26 8.25 3.68 2.33 0.99 Small banded swift Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius,1798) 0.58 0.29 3.91 1.66 2.91 1.17 Large branded swift Pelopidas subochracea (Moore, 1878) 0.41 0.26 4.5 1.46 2.08 1.13 Moore’s ace Halpe porus (Mabille, 1876) 0 5.58 2.76 1.66 0.61 Indian palm bob Suastus gremius (Fabricius, 1798) 0.08 0.08 5.08 2.01 1.91 0.75 Chestnut bob Iambrix salsala (Moore, 1865) 0 4.25 2.26 1.91 1 Common red eye Matapa aria (Moore, 1865) 0 0.75 0.51 1.25 0.63 Bush hopper Ampittia dioscorides (Fabricius, 1793) 0 1.25 0.66 1.33 0.53 Grass demon Udaspes folus (Cramer, 1775) 0 1.5 0.79 0.75 0.33

sustain varied kinds of ecosystem services for human well-being. In Sampling techniques view of the essential ecosystem services rendered by butterflies and to promote conservation management, the present study was The butterflies were observed and recorded directly in the field aimed at the estimation of the butterfly diversity across the urbane following “Pollard Walk” method (Pollard 1977; Pollard and Yates rural gradient in Kolkata, India. Diversity of the butterflies across 1993) with necessary modifications. For each site there were five the urbanerural gradient was aimed to deduce the effects of the transect paths (1000 m each) in 500-m gap. Individuals were spatial factors on the butterfly species aggregation across the urban counted on either side of the path (at a distance of 2.5 m). Thus, landscape. The results of the study are expected to supplement the there were a total 5 km (1000 m 5) transect tracts for each site necessary information on the conservation management and each month. In critical conditions, they were captured by hand enhancing the ecological roles of the butterfly species in Kolkata, net following Tiple (2012),identified using suitable keys (Evans India and similar geographical areas. 1932; Wynter-Blyth 1957; Haribal 1992; Kunte 2000; Kehimkar 2008) and released in the same habitat from where they were captured with least disturbance. Appropriate precautions were Materials and methods undertaken to guarantee that the scales present on the wings of the butterflies were minimally affected. Photographs of all the Sampling site butterflies were taken using cameras (Canon EOS 350D; Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan; and Nikon Coolpix p510; Nikon Inc., Tokyo, The study was conducted in Kolkata Metropolitan Area (KMA) Japan) during the present survey and preserved for taxonomic which covered urbanized Kolkata city and its surroundings subur- documentation. ban and rural areas. During this study, three sampling sites were selected from KMA. The site which was located within Kolkata city Data analysis was represented as the urban site. Suburban and rural sites were selected far from Kolkata main city. Global Positioning System The diversity indices of the butterfly abundance of each study (GPS; GPSMAP 76Cx, Garmin, Olathe, Kansas, USA) was used to site were analyzed separately using Biodiversity Pro software record the geographic coordinates. The central points of the study (McAleece et al 1997; Biodiversity Professional; Scottish Associa- sites were Ballyguange Science College, Kolkata [Urban site (U), tion for Marine Science and the Natural History Museum, London, 2231’38.12” N, 8821’46.11” E], Baidyabati Station, Hooghly [Sub- UK). SpeciesP diversity was calculated using Shannon diversity index urban (Su), 22 47’42.40” N, 88 19’54.14” E], Ramchandrapur, North 0 [H ¼ Pi ln Pi) and Shannon Hmax (Hmax ¼ Log10(S)], Shannon 24 Parganas [Rural (R), 22 53’32.26” N, 88 28’07.10” E]. 0 evenness was calculated using the formula; J ¼ H /Hmax, where, H0 ¼ information content of sample (bits/individual) or Shannon th Sampling period and time diversity index, and Pi ¼ proportion of total sample belonging to i species, S ¼ total number of species in habitat (species richness) The butterflies were observed in the sampling sites for a period (Magurran 1988). A SHE analysis (McAleece et al 1997) followed of 1 year between January 2013 and December 2013. Each study site this to represent evenness of samples in terms of expected and was visited once a month and transects ware observed from early observed species richness of butterflies in all three sites. SHE morning (7:00 AM) to afternoon (5:00 PM) during good weather analysis examines the relationship between S (species richness), H periods (no heavy rain and strong wind). (information), and E (evenness) in the samples. The SHE analysis S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 213

Figure 1. The representative butterfly species encountered in the present study: A, Graphium doson;B,Graphium agamemnon;C,Papilio polytes;D,Papilio demoleus;E,Chilasa clytia; F, Papilio polymnestor;G,Pachliopta aristolochiae;H,Pachliopta hector;I,Graphium nomius;J,Eurema brigitta;K,Eurema blanda;L,Eurema hecabe;M,Catopsilia pomona;N,Catopsilia pyranthe;O,Ixias pyrene;P,Pareronia valeria;Q,Appias libythea;R,Cepora nerissa;S,Delias eucharis;T,Leptosia nina;U,Belenois aurota;V,Tirumala limniace;W,Danaus genutia; and X, Danaus chrysippus.

provides a nutshell of the variations in the species richness and When species abundance and rank are coupled as a measure of abundance over the sample size or the month, integrating the data their relative representation in a community, a broken stick model on the richness and abundance for a particular space. The analysis can be a possible mode of expression. According to this model the was performed using Biodiversity Pro software (McAleece et al rank of a species is made in correspondence to its relative abun- 1997). dance in an ensemble of different species. The rank of a species may 214 S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

Figure 2. The representative butterfly species encountered in the present study: A, Euploea klugii;B,Euploea core;C,Melanitis leda;D,Lethe europa;E,Elymnias hypermnestra;F, Mycalesis perseus;G,Mycalesis mineus;H,Ypthima asterope;I,Ypthima baldus;J,Ypthima huebneri;K,Acraea violae;L,Phalanta phalantha;M,Moduza procris;N,Neptis jumbah;O, Euthalia aconthea;P,Euthalia lubentina;Q,Ariadne ariadne;R,Ariadne merione;S,Junonia almana;T,Junonia atlites;U,Junonia lemonias;V,Junonia orithya;W,Hypolimnas bolina; and X, Hypolimnas misippus.

be assumed to provide a glimpse of its prospective dominance in (ANOVA) considering sampling sites, month, and butterfly family as number and functional role, while presenting this rank abundance, variables. The statistical analyses were performed following Zar a gradual curvature is observed, where a log series similarity is the (1999) using the SPSS version 10 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Il, USA; curve which can be obtained. The diversity assessment enabled Kinnear and Gray 2000). highlighting the observed species richness pattern of the butter- flies. The mean values of the pooled abundance data of three sites Results were used to calculate the monthly and site-wise distribution of butterfly families and to categorize the butterflies’ local status. The During this study, 96 butterfly species under five families were log (n þ 1) transformed data of butterfly species abundance were observed in and around Kolkata (Table 1, Figures 1e4). Based on used to form rank abundance of all three sites. To comment on the mean value of butterfly occurrence in all three sites, 12.50% species variation with respect to site and month, data on butterfly abun- was categorized as very common species whereas 31.25% species dance was subjected to three-way factorial analysis of variance was common, 25% species was not rare, 22.92% was rare, and 9.38% S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 215

Figure 3. The representative butterfly species encountered in the present study: A, Spalgis nubilus;B,Curetis thetis;C,Mahathala ameria;D,Iraota timoleon E, Loxura atymnus;F, Rathinda amor;G,Virachola isocrates;H,Rapala manea;I,Rapala varuna;J,Spindasis vulcanus;K,Anthene emolus;L,Anthene lycaenina;M,Castalius rosimon;N,Talicada nyseus;O, Tarucus nara;P,Tarucus plinius;Q,Prosotas nora;R,Prosotas dubiosa;S,Jamides bochus;T,Jamides celeno;U,Catochrysops strabo;V,Lampides boeticus;W,Zizula hylax; and X, Pseudozizeeria maha. species was very rare. The maximum number of butterfly species present study. The color and decorations of the butterflies speak of were recorded under family Lycaenidae (31.25%) followed by high variability in the wing pattern (Figures 1e4) which remained Nymphalidae (28.13%), Hesperiidae (18.75%), Pieridae (12.50%), and consistent for all the three sites sampled. The number of species Papilionidae (9.38%). The possible differences in the relative differ- (Figure 5) and the abundance of families (Figure 6) were highest in ences in the representations of the families can be attributable to the the suburban area, followed by rural and urban areas. The species differences in the habitat conditions in the sites sampled in the diversity and evenness of the three sites were expressed by values of 216 S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

Figure 4. The representative butterfly species encountered in the present study: A, Zizeeria karsandra;B,Neopithecops zalmora;C,Euchrysops cnejus;D,Chilades lajus;E,Cato- chrysops vapanda;F,Abisara echerius;G,Badamia exclamationis;H,Hasora chromus;I,Spialia galba;J,Tagiades japetus;K,Sarangesa dasahara;L,Taractrocera maevius;M,Oriens goloides;N,Telicota ancilla;O,Parnara guttatus;P,Borbo cinnara;Q,Pelopidas mathias;R,Pelopidas subochracea;S,Halpe porus;T,Suastus gremius;U,Iambrix salsala;V,Matapa aria; W, Ampittia dioscorides; and X, Udaspes folus.

0 0 Shannon H , Shannon Hmax, and Shannon J indices (Figure 7), which followed a similar pattern, though the monthly variations were obvious. As reflected through the results of SHE analysis (Figure 8), species richness was higher in the rural and suburban areas than in the urban areas. Including the abundance of the species in the samples as a parameter for comparison, the rank abundance curves indicate greater diversity of butterflies in the suburban areas in comparison to the rural and the urban areas (Figure 9). Observations on the monthly variations of butterfly abundances indicate bimodal patterns of peak from March to May and from September to November while a low from December to February and from June to August, irrespective of sites (Figure 10). It appears that the butterfly abundance increased twice corresponding to the summer and the Figure 5. The numbers of butterfly species observed in the three study sites, rural (R), post monsoon, while decreased in the winter and the monsoon suburban (Su), and urban (U), of Kolkata, India. A total of 96 species were noted from U, Su, and R sites. All the 96 species were encountered in Su sites, of which 53 species period, possibly with the changes in the temperature and the hu- were recorded from U and 81 species recorded from R. Su sites bear 13 unique species. midity of the habitats concerned. The results of the three-way S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 217

Figure 6. The relative abundance of the different butterfly family in the rural (R), suburban (SU) and the urban (U) areas sampled during the study period.

factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differ- green exist in the sampled area of Kolkata city. Overall the differ- ences for sites, months, and the family of butterfly as explanatory ences in the species distribution in the three areas were prominent variables (Table 2 and Figure 10). The significant interaction among though the abundance of the different species was not profound the months, sites, and the families is a reflection of the variability in possibly because of the corresponding abundance of the host plants the abundance pattern of the butterflies in the space and seasons of in the concerned areas. The observed variations in the species the sampled geographical area. The post hoc Tukey test revealed richness in the urban, suburban, and rural areas provide an significant differences among the sites and the families of butterfly impression of the differences in the host plant abundance and the (Table 3). However few differences were observed for the months, landscape characteristics in the region. Earlier studies on the but- which support the bimodal pattern of increase and decrease in the terfly diversity in the agricultural landscape contrast to the urban abundance of butterflies in the study area. The results indicate that and suburban regions show that the richness increased with the considerable variations in the diversity of butterflies exist with availability of the green space and the heterogeneity of the habitats respect to the space, months, and the families, consistent with the in terms of the available plant species (Kuussaari et al 2007). findings in different parts of the globe. Consistent with these studies the present observation records higher diversity in the suburban areas followed by the rural areas Discussion and the urban areas (Blair and Launer 1997; Kitahara and Sei 2001; Hogsden and Hutchinson 2004). A total of 96 species belonging to The utility of butterflies as indicators of environmental condi- five families were recorded from all three study sites. tions is a basis for studying butterfly diversity at a spatio-temporal The maximum number of butterfly species was recorded under scale (Stefanescu et al 2004). Observations on the butterfly di- family Lycaenidae, followed by Nymphalidae, Hesperiidae, Pieridae, versity provide information about the variations in the species and Papilionidae. Among these 96 species, 12.5% species Papilio richness and the abundance shaped by the vegetation along the polytes, Papilio demoleus, Eurema hecabe, Catopsilia pyranthe, landscape (Harrington and Stork 1995; Öckinger and Smith 2006; Catopsilia pomona, Delias eucharis, Danaus chrysippus, Melanitis Öckinger et al 2006, 2009) and the species interactions. Although leda, Junonia almana, Junonia atlites, Neopithecops zalmora were the local determinants of the diversity such as competition, pre- very common, locally. Out of the 96 butterfly species, 13 species dation remained undermined in these studies, grossly the land- specified under Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 were scape features influence the richness and the abundance of encountered in fewer numbers. The butterflies Pachliopta hector, butterflies in the different geographical areas (Öckinger et al 2006, Hypolimnas misippus and subspecies of Castalius rosimon alarbus, 2009). The spatial scale differences in the diversity of the butterflies Neptis jumbah binghami, Chilasa clytia clytia, and Lethe europa can be attributed to the landscape level heterogeneity, while the tamuna are placed in Schedule I Part IV, Mahathala ameria, Cepora differences in the temporal scale can be attributed to the changes in nerissa, Rapala varuna, Lampides boeticus, and Euchrysops cnejus are the climatic conditions both at the local and regional scale. In the protected under Schedule II Part II, and Appias libythea and Euthalia present context, it may be assumed that the diversity of the but- lubentina, are categorized as Schedule IV. However, by contrast to terfly varied in the three sites as a matter of the landscape differ- the other protected butterfly species, Cepora nerissa, Euchrysops ences existing in the urban, suburban, and the rural areas. While cnejus and Appias libythea were observed in higher abundance in the rural areas were dominated by the cultivable lands, the vege- the study area. Although not protected under the schedule cate- tation remained homogeneous with less richness of plant species gory, the butterfly species Graphium nomius, Belenois aurota, that host the butterfly populations. By contrast the suburban areas Ypthima asterope, Iraota timoleon, Talicada nyseus, Junonia orithya, hosted a greater variety of butterfly species possibly as a conse- Abisara echerius, and Tagiades japetus were encountered in fewer quence of larger areas with diverse vegetation pattern. The urban numbers restricted to suburban sites. Among the butterflies areas were less diverse in terms of the vegetation and the available observed in the urban sites, all species, except for Rapala manea and space for the plant growth, though several gardens and patches of Talicada nyseus, were common with high abundance. 218 S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

Figure 7. The values of the diversity indices in different months for different areas of Kolkata, India as observed through the random sampling of the butterflies in the study area: A, urban; B, suburban; C, rural.

Although the trends in the diversity of the butterflies in different 2004; Wilson et al 2004; Sodhi et al 2010). The number of spe- months of the year remained similar for all of the three sites, spe- cies observed in the present study remained similar to the obser- cies richness and abundance remained considerably different. vations on the species in different parts of India bearing similar Representation of Papilionidae was highest in the rural regions landscape patterns (Dronamraju 1958, 1960; Roy et al 2012; Harsh while representatives of Pieridae remained dominant in the urban 2014; and Saikia 2014). As revealed through the present study, at and suburban regions of the study area. The disparity in the least 96 butterfly species are available in different numbers across representative orders in the three landscapes is a significant indi- the ruraleurban gradient of Kolkata, India. Dominance of the but- cator of the prospective habitat selection for the conservation of the terflies of the family Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae is similar to that butterfly species in the concerned geographical area. Although the observed in other parts of the world. In parity with the species diversity difference is not a suitable indicator of the selection and diversity observed in Kolkata, India, it may be assumed that the prioritization of the regions for butterfly conservation, the present butterflies carry out diverse functional roles for the sustenance of observations remain consistent with the records and views of the the ecosystems in the urban as well as the rural areas. Although the butterfly species in different parts of the world (Koh and Sodhi variations in the species composition in the urban and the rural S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 219

Figure 8. Representation of SHE analysis [S (species richness), H (information) and E (evenness) in the samples] for butterflies of Kolkata, India, calculated on the data of relative abundances of 96 butterfly species of 12 month (samples) of three different sites in and around Kolkata. These represent the turnover of species between sites calculated on the basis of comparison of 12 samples: A, urban; B, suburban; C, rural sites.

Figure 9. The log (nþ1) transformed data of butterfly species abundance were used to show the rank of butterflies in urban, suburban, and rural sites. Su > R > U. R ¼ rural; Su ¼ suburban; U ¼ urban. 220 S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221

Figure 10. The relative abundance of the different families in a month as observed through the sampling of the rural, suburban, and the urban areas in and around Kolkata for a year long study period. Note the dominance of Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae over Hesperiidae, Pieridae, and Papillionidae. The data represents mean and SE of all the samples from the study area. SE, standard error.

Table 2. Results of three-way factorial ANOVA on the abundance (number of in- Table 3. Results of post hoc Tukey test between the families of butterfly, sites, and dividuals in each family) of butterflies considering sampling sites, month and family months. Values marked bold are significant at p < 0.05. as explanatory variables. F values marked in bold are significant at p < 0.05. Families df ¼ 3276, 4 Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Partial h2 (I) Family (J) Family (IeJ) SE Family 24969.103 4 6242.276 50.646 0.058 Papilionidae Pieridae L4.19 0.816 Mo 38233.471 11 3475.770 28.200 0.086 Papilionidae Nymphalidae 0.51 0.712 Site 43306.001 2 21653.001 175.678 0.097 Papilionidae Lycaenidae 3.56 0.703 Family * mo 16542.315 44 375.962 3.050 0.039 Papilionidae Hesperiidae 4.21 0.755 Family * site 15456.334 8 1932.042 15.675 0.037 Pieridae Nymphalidae 4.7 0.642 Month * site 25197.431 22 1145.338 9.293 0.059 Pieridae Lycaenidae 7.75 0.632 Family * mo * site 13745.618 88 156.200 1.267 0.033 Pieridae Hesperiidae 8.39 0.69 Error 403778.672 3276 123.254 Nymphalidae Lycaenidae 3.04 0.491 Total 661238.000 3456 Nymphalidae Hesperiidae 3.69 0.563 ANOVA ¼ analysis of variance; df ¼ degrees of freedom; F ¼ variance ratio. Lycaenidae Hesperiidae 0.65 0.552 Sites df ¼ 3276, 2; SE ¼ 0.463 areas were prominent in the study this does not necessarily (I) site (J) site (IeJ) translate into different functional roles in the respective sites. Urban Suburban L8.28 Rather the availability of the vegetation and allied factors that Urban Rural L1.31 render stability to the population and butterfly assemblages in the Suburban Rural 6.98 landscapes are possibly important contributors to the observed Month df ¼ 3276, 11; SE ¼ 0.93 variations in the butterfly species observed in the present study. (I) Mo (J) Mo (IeJ) (I) Mo (J) Mo (IeJ) (I) Mo (J) Mo (IeJ) Irrespective of the variations across the different landscape, the observations on the diversity of the butterflies in the study area Jan Feb 0.4 Mar May 3.7 May Dec 5.9 Jan Mar L3.2 Mar Jun 0.65 Jun Jul 0 suggests that the conservation management is required to ensure Jan Apr L6.5 Mar Jul 0.56 Jun Aug 2 sustenance of different ecosystem services derived from the but- Jan May L6.9 Mar Aug 1 Jun Sep L5 terflies. Butterfly abundance in the urban landscapes will promote Jan Jun 2.6 Mar Sep L4.3 Jun Oct L8 the propagation of different plant species that can reduce the Jan Jul 2.7 Mar Oct L7.5 Jun Nov L5 L L dwindling vegetation. Further studies should be initiated to aim at Jan Aug 4.3 Mar Nov 4.6 Jun Dec 1.6 Jan Sep L7.6 Mar Dec 2.26 Jul Aug 2 fi the species speci c roles for monitoring the environmental changes Jan Oct L11 Apr May 0.4 Jul Sep L5 and sustain the ecosystem integrity in the urban landscapes. Jan Nov L7.8 Apr Jun 3.9 Jul Oct L8 Ninety six butterfly species were encountered in and around Jan Dec 1 Apr Jul 3.81 Jul Nov L5 Kolkata, India, with varying relative abundance in the rural, sub- Feb Mar 2.8 Apr Aug 2.22 Jul Dec 1.7 L fl Feb Apr 6 Apr Sep 1.1 Aug Sep 3 urban, and urban landscapes. The maximum number of butter y Feb May L6.5 Apr Oct 4.3 Aug Oct L6 species were recorded under family Lycaenidae, followed by Feb Jun 2.1 Apr Nov 1.3 Aug Nov L4 Nymphalidae, Hesperiidae, Pieridae, and Papilionidae. The number Feb Jul 2.2 Apr Dec 5.5 Aug Dec 3.3 of species and the abundance of families were highest in the sub- Feb Aug 3.8 May Jun 4.32 Sept Oct L3 L urban area, followed by rural and urban areas. Occurrence of spe- Feb Sep 7.1 May Jul 4.23 Sept Nov 0 Feb Oct L10 May Aug 2.64 Sept Dec 6.6 cies diversity and abundance were maximum in the months of Feb Nov L7.4 May Sep 0.7 Oct Nov 2.9 MarcheMay and minimum in the months of DecembereFebruary. Feb Dec 0.5 May Oct L3.8 Oct Dec 9.8 Urban areas of Kolkata can sustain diverse butterfly species that Mar Apr 3.3 May Nov 0.9 Nov Dec 6.9 includes species requiring conservation effort. SE ¼ standard error; df ¼ degrees of freedom. S Mukherjee et al. / Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8 (2015) 210e221 221

Acknowledgments Kunte K. 2000. Butterflies of Peninsular India. Hyderabad: Universities Press (India) Limited. p. 254. Kuussaari M, Heliölä J, Luoto M, Pöyry J. 2007. Determinants of local species rich- The authors acknowledge the comments of two anonymous ness of diurnal in boreal agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Eco- reviewers that facilitated improvement of the manuscript to its systems & Environment 122:366e376. present form. The authors are grateful to the respective Heads of Losey JE, Vaughan M. 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56:311e323. the Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, and The Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. London: Chapman and University of Burdwan, Burdwan, India for the facilities provided Hall. p. 192. including DST-FIST and UGC-SAP (DRS I & II). GKS and SM McAleece N, Gage JD, Lambshead J, et al. 1997. Biodiversity professional. UK: The Natural History Museum & The Scottish Association for Marine Science. acknowledge the partial support of West Biodiversity Board, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: syn- West Bengal, India in executing the research work. SM acknowl- thesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. p. 137. edges the financial assistance of UGC through SAP-RFSMS and of New TR. 1991. Butterfly conservation. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. p. 224. Nimbalkar RK, Chandekar SK, Khunte SP. 2011. Butterfly diversity in relation to University of Calcutta through University Research Fellowship in nectar food plants from Bhor Tahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of carrying out this work (Sanction No. UGC/1143/Fellow (univ) Threatened Taxa 3:1601e1609. 25.09.2014). Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG. 2009. The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 93:31e37. References Öckinger E, Eriksson AK, Smith HG. 2006. Effects of grassland management, abandonment and restoration on butterflies and vascular plants. Biological Aluri JSR, Rao SP. 2002. Psychophily and evolution consideration of Cadaba fructi- Conservation 133:291e300. cosa (Capparaceae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 99:59e63. Öckinger E, Smith HG. 2006. Landscape composition and habitat area affect but- Baumgӓrtner SS. 2007. The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of terfly species richness. Oecologia 149:526e534. ecosystem services. Natural Resource Modelling 20:87e127. Pollard E, Yates TJ. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Blair RB, Launer AE. 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assem- Chapman and Hall. p. 292. blages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80:113e125. Pollard E. 1977. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Bonebrake TC, Ponisio C, Boggs CL, et al. 2010. More than just indicators: a review of Biological Conservation 12:115e134. tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological Conservation 143:1831e1841. Roy US, Mukherjee M, Mukhopadhyay SK. 2012. Butterfly diversity and abundance Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Wash- with reference to habitat heterogeneity in and around Neora Valley National ington, DC: Island Press. p. 392. Park, West Bengal, India. Our Nature 10:53e60. Dronamraju KR. 1958. The visits of insects to different colored flowers of Lantana Saikia MK. 2014. Diversity of tropical butterflies in urban altered forest at Gauhati camara L. Current Science 27:452e453. University Campus, Jalukbari, . Journal of Global Biosciences 3:452e463. Dronamraju KR. 1960. Selective visits of butterflies to flowers: a possible factor in Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Clements R, et al. 2010. Conserving Southeast Asian forest sympatric speciation. Nature 186:178. biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 143:2375e Ehrlich PR, Hanski I. 2004. On the wings of checkerspots: a model system for popu- 2384. lation biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 408. Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Páramo F. 2004. Butterfly species richness in the north- Ehrlich PR, Raven PH. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution west Mediterranean Basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. 18:586e608. Journal of Biogeography 31:905e915. Evans WH. 1932. The identification of Indian butterflies. Bombay: Bombay Natural Summerville KS, Crist TO. 2001. Diversity of lepidoptera in Ohio forests at local and History Society. p. 464. regional scales: how heterogeneous is the fauna? Annals of the Entomological Haribal M. 1992. The butterflies of Sikkim and their natural history. Society of America 94:583e591. Gangtok: Sikkim Nature Conservation Foundation (SNCF). p. 217. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Harrington R, Stork NE. 1995. Insects in a changing environment. London: Academic Nature 427:145e148. Press. pp. 431e439. Thomas JA. 2005. Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects Harsh S. 2014. Butterfly diversity of Indian institute of forest management, Bhopal, using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Insects 2014:1e4. Royal Society B 360:339e357. Hogsden KL, Hutchinson TC. 2004. Butterfly assemblages along a human distur- Tiple AD, Deshmukh VP, Dennis RLH. 2006. Factors influencing nectar plant bance gradient in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:739e748. resource visits by butterflies on a university campus: implications for conser- Kehimkar I. 2008. The book of Indian butterflies. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History vation. Nota Lepidopteralogica 28:213e224. Society and Oxford University Press. p. 497. Tiple AD. 2012. Butterfly species diversity, relative abundance and status in Tropical Kinnear PR, Gray CD. 2000. SPSS for windows made simple. Release 10. Sussex. UK: Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, central India. Journal of Psychology Press. p. 432. Threatened Taxa 4 (7):2713e2717. Kitahara M, Sei K. 2001. A comparison of the diversity and structure of butterfly Watt WB, Boggs CL. 2003. Synthesis: butterflies as model systems in ecology and communities in seminatural and human-modified grassland habitats at the foot evolutiondpresent and future. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR, editors. of Mt. Fuji, central Japan. Biological Conservation 10:331e351. Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. Chicago: The University of Chicago Kocher SD, Williams EH. 2000. The diversity and abundance of North American Press. pp. 603e613. butterflies, vary with habitat disturbance and geography. Journal of Biogeog- Wilson EO. 1997. Introduction. In: Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO, editors. raphy 27:785e794. Biodiversity II. Washington, D.C: Henry Press. pp. 1e3. Koh LP, Sodhi NS. 2004. Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly Wilson RJ, Thomas CD, Fox R, et al. 2004. Spatial patterns in species distributions conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecological Applications 14:1695e reveal biodiversity change. Nature 432:393e396. 1708. Wynter-Blyth MA. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian region. Mumbai: Bombay Natural Koh LP. 2007. Impacts of land use change on South-east Asian forest butterflies: a History Society. 523 p. review. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:703e713. Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. New Delhi (Indian Branch): Pearson Kunte K, Joglekar A, Utkarsh G, Padmanabhan P. 1999. Patterns of butterfly, bird and Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.. p. 667. tree diversity in the Western Ghats. Current Science 77:577e586.